December 30, 2025
JAKARTA – When the Constitutional Court ruled to ban active police officers from holding concurrent civilian positions and the police chief responded with a regulation allowing the practice to stand, rational observers called this act disrespectful of the rule of law.
The controversy did not stop there. A lawmaker from the ruling Gerindra Party defended the police chief’s defiance of the court’s ruling, which is final and binding. Another politician from the National Awakening Party (PKB) concurred, arguing that the regulation did not violate the ruling.
To complicate things, President Prabowo Subianto has remained silent, though Coordinating Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Correctional Services Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra confirmed that the President agreed to issue a government regulation to settle the matter beyond doubt.
The debate only shows that legal certainty remains a chronic problem, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court was founded in part to solve it.
Many of our laws are laden with exceptions. One such legislation is the 2002 Police Law, which prohibits active police officers from holding civilian posts in the bureaucracy but simultaneously grants the National Police chief the authority to assign active officers to serve roles at external institutions without resigning.
This inconsistency led to a motion for a judicial review of the Police Law that the Constitutional Court granted last month, on the grounds that the relevant article created legal uncertainty, a violation of Article 28D, paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
Legal uncertainty often stems not only from conflicting interpretations, usually as a result of vague statutory language, but also from shifting policies. Investors have long pointed to this lack of certainty as a major hurdle to the ease of doing business in the country.
By issuing a regulation that permits active officers to take managerial or nonmanagerial roles at 17 civilian institutions, National Police chief Gen. Listyo Sigit Prabowo has not only brought back legal uncertainty, he has also committed contempt of court. His move is particularly dangerous because it normalizes legal violations by the very institution meant to uphold the law.
The controversial regulation sends a message that the policing institution and its personnel are above the law, an impression already fueled by the impunity accorded to police generals linked to past graft scandals and other high-profile criminal cases. In view of the country’s dream of becoming a full-fledged democracy, the police chief’s defiance of the Constitutional Court as a court of first and final instance, not just this particular ruling, undermines the principle of checks and balances.
Critical citizens might ask why Listyo dared take such a risk. He would not have had the confidence to do so if he had no support from the political establishment, as represented by politicians from Gerindra and the PKB of President Prabowo’s so-called grand coalition.
Meanwhile, the President’s inaction regarding his aide’s maneuvering suggests he may still be calculating the political costs and benefits of the police regulation with respect to his administration’s stability.
The police were instrumental in maintaining security and order when Prabowo was faced with a series of demonstrations only a year into his presidency. Even earlier, reports of police partiality for Prabowo and Gibran Rakabuming Raka were rampant ahead of the 2024 election.
In the wake of mounting demands for police reform, Listyo’s move essentially disregards this rallying cry that followed August’s public protests.
Listyo, along with three former police chiefs, is part of the 10-member police reform acceleration commission formed by Prabowo and has expressed his commitment to the reform agenda. His latest policy action shows otherwise, especially as the much-awaited reform aims at transforming the National Police into a professional institution focused on its constitutional mandate of security and law enforcement.
Either through a government regulation or other means, President Prabowo must end this legal uncertainty, or else he will become complicit in this shift from the rule of law to a rule by law.